IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [EAI] Email and new RRTYPES (was: Re: Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt)

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 08 March 2012 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B53221F86DE for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 04:51:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.152, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ysgmVGlkFaVk for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 04:51:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD3F21F86C7 for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 04:51:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:45617) by ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1S5coC-0002p9-Qo (Exim 4.72) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:51:04 +0000
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1S5coC-000276-7W (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:51:04 +0000
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:51:04 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <8127B38D7EA84CB3A2C80585@PST.JCK.COM>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1203081239140.2756@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <9398EB240E232C9A424DD5DA@PST.JCK.COM> <6.2.5.6.2.20120307120952.0a0b5f70@resistor.net> <594BEBB58EF0FA808925B0C7@PST.JCK.COM> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1203081154500.24583@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <8127B38D7EA84CB3A2C80585@PST.JCK.COM>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] Email and new RRTYPES (was: Re: Fw: I-D Action: draft-yao-eai-dns-00.txt)
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:51:16 -0000

John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com> wrote:

> > It's the user interfaces that need better support for new RR
> > types much more than the servers.
>
> Absolutely.  But it is hard to think about how to change the
> user interfaces without the server support.

If the user interface can translate a new RR into either wire format (if
it talks to the back end using DNS QUERY and UPDATE messages) or into
TYPEnnn format (for master files) or some proprietary RDATA blob format,
then no special server support is necessary, provided it conforms to RFC
3597 (handling of unknown RR types).

I don't mean to argue that server support for John's language is
unimportant, just that it isn't a prerequisite.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
North FitzRoy: Variable 4 in east at first, otherwise southerly 4 or 5. Very
rough or high. Mainly fair. Moderate or good.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email